US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Notices

Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Location: I've moved around the American West. I've lived in Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Oklahoma

Age: 38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaioshin Sama

Confirms my suspicion that the USA itself is literally the only country that could conceivably elect Romney. Guy would get crushed if he were running against Obama here in Canada. Quebec in particular would devour him alive. Romney would be all like, "I have to do a debate in French too?!!! "

???

You do know that Romney speaks French don't you?

__________________

Cross Game - A Story of Love, Life, Death - and Baseball. What more could you want?

Thank you for that Netto Azure.
That was very interesting.
I would never vote for the Green, Justice, or Constitution party candidates based on what they said in that debate, however, I loved Gary Johnson's performance.
He hit all the right marks and said what does need to be done.
I wish he would have been a part of the 3 debates with Romney and Obama.
It would have been very interesting to see him up against those two.

I suspect the Libertarian Party has the best bet to cross the critical mass line. Particularly as the remaining "sane" GOP voters flee the crazy circus, "got mine, f u" crowd, and Wall Street puppeteers.

I like having the Greens around as a 'loyal opposition' just to keep the spotlight on some issues.

I liked it. I think the best argument one can make for more parties in the system is that it dilutes the concentration of power, which reduces the ability of any one party being able to mandate over the other. It also encourages interesting alliances and ideas since representative voting power would be reduced significantly. Gridlock is a given when people clash, but I don't think it would be as bad as it is right now if a third, fourth, etc., party commanded enough seats.

Define irony: Republicans and Democrats talking about the wonders of free markets while running a duopoly.

Sorry ... the fake beards and stones were a reference to Monty Python's "Life of Brian" (the women would wear beards so they could attend the stonings)

I laugh so hard whenever I can catch that scene. John Cleese at his best calling for blasphemy.

That guy from Indiana would deserve a stoning for even dare saying such insanity (if not blasphemy to some extent) about rape as God's Will. My verdict to him should follow: And so as A BLASPHEMER!!! You are to be stoned to death!

Guess they were right when they said that crazy anti-abortion stuff had effected many of the Republican base and their top supporters. Seriously, first it was "Women can shut down a rape child" and now "God intended for the Rape".

Naturally Murdock is saying people are twisting his words and that THEY are the disgusting ones for quoting him. Obviously Romney is distancing himself but is still accepting all contributions from Murdock.

Guess they were right when they said that crazy anti-abortion stuff had effected many of the Republican base and their top supporters. Seriously, first it was "Women can shut down a rape child" and now "God intended for the Rape".

I laugh so hard whenever I can catch that scene. John Cleese at his best calling for blasphemy.

That guy from Indiana would deserve a stoning for even dare saying such insanity (if not blasphemy to some extent) about rape as God's Will. My verdict to him should follow: And so as A BLASPHEMER!!! You are to be stoned to death!

As much as I strongly disagree with the guy, thinking that he deserves to be stoned to death is pretty crazy itself

Quote:

Obviously Romney is distancing himself but is still accepting all contributions from Murdock.

So what? Romney says that he disagrees with the guy, and that should be enough. I don't see any reason why he should be expected to completely shun and ignore someone over one difference of opinion.

As much as I strongly disagree with the guy, thinking that he deserves to be stoned to death is pretty crazy itself

No one was advocating stoning HIM (oh, wait someone was) -- but that's the standard biblical "punishment" for simply being a woman in the wrong place at the wrong time. He's the type that might seem to be okay with bring that back. The stoning suggestion simply follows that logic in reverse.

Quote:

So what? Romney says that he disagrees with the guy, and that should be enough. I don't see any reason why he should be expected to completely shun and ignore someone over one difference of opinion.

Oh, come on, Casey. If the single difference of opinion you and someone had was that rape pregnancy was a "gift from God to the woman" ... you'd still go to lunch with them?

I have members of my family I don't speak to any more because of their racist statements. That's just a "difference of opinion" on one topic, too.

No one was advocating stoning HIM (oh, wait someone was) -- but that's the standard biblical "punishment" for simply being a woman in the wrong place at the wrong time. He's the type that might seem to be okay with bring that back. The stoning suggestion simply follows that logic in reverse.

Ah, well that makes more sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexx

Oh, come on, Casey. If the single difference of opinion you and someone had was that rape pregnancy was a "gift from God to the woman" ... you'd still go to lunch with them?

I have members of my family I don't speak to any more because of their racist statements. That's just a "difference of opinion" on one topic, too.

I would, personally; there's people I'm close to who have disgusting or infuriating opinions on certain subjects, but, well, I try to shove that aside and forget about it because I care about the person, and our relationship is more important to me than the fact that I adamantly disagree with them on certain topics. I think it's totally understandable for people to be less forgiving of such things than I am, but I wouldn't say that associating with someone who said something terrible reflects poorly on the non-guilty party; I haven't outright abandoned friends or family for saying things that I vehemently disagree with and which seriously piss me off, and so I wouldn't really expect other people to either.

I would, personally; there's people I'm close to who have disgusting or infuriating opinions on certain subjects, but, well, I try to shove that aside and forget about it because I care about the person, and our relationship is more important to me than the fact that I adamantly disagree with them on certain topics.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Romney and Murdock here aren't friends. They just happen to be in the same party, and the latter happens to be giving the former money. Outside of being given money, there's no reason at all that Romney should "care" about this guy.

Maybe, but I just don't believe in 'guilt by association' (at least when it comes to something as simple as a matter of opinion, no matter how misguided and awful the opinion might be) and don't think Romney should come under heat for not completely disavowing the guy.

But the association is that he's taking contributions from the guy. When you take a political contribution, the implication is that you will assist in carrying out the contributor's political agenda. Thus, by taking the guy's money, he's associating himself with those political views.

As much as I strongly disagree with the guy, thinking that he deserves to be stoned to death is pretty crazy itself.

Of course I didn't mean it literally, but I can play comedy in my head when that guy previously mentioned the analogy to Monty Python's punishment scene for a blasphemy. And besides, as Vexx said, Murdock looks to be the type to get stoning back.

Edit: Trump to give $5 million to charity if Obama releases recordshttp://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8LO6IB20121024
That guy will never face the true or it's just a opportunity go get some publicity.
Of course what he should do is the same proposition to Romney, but ask for his last 5 tax declarations insted.